Hopefully, the Generals will prevent disaster in Iran

From Jeff Huber at the Pen and Sword

I've been saying for some time that the only way the Pentagon might block a strike on Iran would be through key four-star officers resigning in protest. Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter of the Sunday Times reported this week that something like that might be afoot.

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources…

…“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

[...]

From the sound of things, a majority of the top Pentagon brass thinks a strike on Iran would be a disastrous failure, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seems to agree with that view. Mr. Bush's chief ally overseas, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is on record as saying it would not "be right to take military action against Iran."

Also see the piece by John Amato at Crooks and Liars, quoting Sy Hersh

Hersh..inside the military, they are planning very seriously at the President's request to attack Iran

They aren't very happy about this getting out:

We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11, and we should be arresting these people rather than looking the other way…

The plans the pentagon is making for when Bush's latest 'brainstorm' fails.

Jeff Huber at Pen and Sword

Pentagon planners are so confident in the Iraq "surge" strategy that they're planning on what to do when it fails.

From Sidney Blumenthal of Salon:

Deep within the bowels of the Pentagon, policy planners are conducting secret meetings to discuss what to do in the worst-case scenario in Iraq about a year from today if and when President Bush's escalation of more than 20,000 troops fails, a participant in those discussions told me. None of those who are taking part in these exercises, shielded from the public view and the immediate scrutiny of the White House, believes that the so-called surge will succeed. On the contrary, everyone thinks it will not only fail to achieve its aims but also accelerate instability by providing a glaring example of U.S. incapacity and incompetence.

I don't know who Blumenthal's sources inside the bowels of the Pentagon are, but my gut instincts tell me they're right. My instincts also tell me they're right to keep their planning initiatives under wraps, because as Blumenthal also says:

The profoundly pessimistic thinking that permeates the senior military and the intelligence community, however, is forbidden in the sanitized atmosphere of mind-cure boosterism that surrounds Bush. "He's tried this two times -- it's failed twice," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Jan. 24 about the "surge" tactic. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.'" She repeated his words: "'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

Holy Hannah. I'm a subscriber of Mark Twain's assertion that history doesn't repeat itself but it sometimes rhymes. Young Mr. Bush is starting to "sound like" another lunatic who sat in a bunker and only listened to generals who told him what he wanted to hear.

More

Oh, those wonderful folks who brought us Iraq

SusanUnPC at No Quarter.

Even critics of the White House say that Iran's nuclear program poses a grave threat to Israel. "They correctly fear the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel," says retired colonel W. Patrick Lang, who served as an officer for the Middle East, South Asia, and terrorism at the Defense Intelligence Agency. "They are not being silly about this. It really is a threat to Israel."

But waging war against Iran could be the most catastrophic choice of all. It is widely believed that Iran would respond to an attack by blockading the Strait of Hormuz, a 20-mile-wide narrows in the eastern part of the Persian Gulf through which about 40 percent of the world's oil exports are transported. Oil analysts say a blockade could propel the price of oil to $125 a barrel, sending the world economy into a tailspin. There could be vast international oil wars. Iran could act on its fierce rhetoric against Israel.

America's 130,000 soldiers in Iraq would also become highly vulnerable in the event of an attack on Iran. "Our troops in Iraq are supplied with food, fuel, and ammunition by truck convoys from a supply base in Kuwait," says Lang. "Most of that goes over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated South of Iraq. The Iranians could cut those supply lines just like that—the trucks are easy to shoot at with R.P.G.'s," or rocket-propelled grenades.

[...]Even before his January 10 speech, many inside the military had concluded that the decision to bomb Iran has already been made. "Bush's 'redline' for going to war is Iran having the knowledge to produce nuclear weapons—which is probably what they already have now," says Sam Gardiner, a retired air-force colonel who specializes in staging war games on the Middle East. "The president first said [that was his redline] in December 2005, and he has repeated it four times since then."

Read all Here and Here

From Will Bunch at ATTYTOOD - Breaking news: Young woman meets sudden, tragic death

This breaking news story is about the sudden, unexpected, and tragic death of a young woman, not to mention the family that she leaves behind.

Yes, people die every day, and too many do so before their time. But this woman was special, and the things that she did made an impact on all of us.

Oh, there were many things that this woman, so deserving of our undivided attention tonight, did not do. No, she didn't take off her clothes for a men's magazine for a big payday, work as "an exotic dancer" or marry a billionaire customer who was 63 years older than her. Nor did she spend most of her adult life pursuing that billionaire's estate in courtrooms from Texas to Washington, D.C., or record her life for a reality TV show, or abuse drugs, or give birth to a child whose paternity is the focus of a legal battle.

Frankly, we feel silly for even writing those things, because such a woman would clearly not be newsworthy.

No, unlike some women you might see on your newsstand this week, this woman liked simple things: According to one report, she "always enjoyed the water, including boating and scuba diving. She also liked yoga and music and spending time with family and friends."

This is what her aunt says about this unique woman that America mourns tonight:

"If you knew her, you loved her. She was a go-getter. She knew what she wanted in life and she was doing what she had to do to achieve that."

Her name is Jennifer M. Parcell. She was just 20 years old, and she graduated in 2004 from Fallston High School in her hometown, Bel Air, Md.

...You may think that we're crazy here, to devote all our attention to the story of just one woman. But at CNN, anchor T.J. Holmes defended this type of saturation coverage just this afternoon. Here's what he said:

"With everything that's going on...that's the reason we've covering it, because it sort of supersedes entertainment. There are a couple of lawsuits at stake here, and it's just been a very tumultuous time for her."

More

Blackwater: Should be Black Hearted Water.

This is beyond the pale of decency.
Steven Weber at Huffington

...moms and wives and daughters spoke, expressing outrage in hoarse, respectful tones. They testified that they had asked Blackwater USA simple questions: how did my boy die? Why was there no planning? No protection? No help? Why were these men---some in Iraq for mere days before being killed on the mission to protect catering equipment---denied the use of maps? Of an experienced escort? Of heavy defensive weaponry? Where were their remains? Blackwater USA informed them that in order to obtain answers to these questions the families would have to sue the company. Otherwise, they were not obliged to respond. And months later, at a memorial service organized by Blackwater USA, the families were closely guarded by Blackwater USA security and prevented---prevented---from speaking with each other. So sue they did. And what was the response to the suit the grieving families launched? Blackwater USA countersued to the tune of 10 million dollars.

[...]California Republican Representative Darrell Issa prefaced his inquiry with his assertion that their testimony was not germane to the goal of the commission. Having gotten this matter out of the way, he proceeded with what he felt was germane: the authorship of their statement and whether a lawyer was involved in its drafting.

[...]testimonials, when prepared by lawyers, can function as an advance attack in a lawsuit that could result in the awarding of millions of dollars to the plaintiffs. The women responded: "We will not take one dime. We want accountability". And why wouldn't Issa or Shays think that the motive behind the grieving families's lawsuit would be anything other than financial? After all, that is how America does business. That is the heart of why Blackwater USA is there: to profit.

More

Shrub's major accomplishment.

Bush has gone and done something most reasonable folks would have thought impossible...
Booman at Booman Tribune

An annual poll of six Arab countries puts President George W. Bush at the top of the world's 'most disliked' for the first time in the history of the poll, CNN International reported today.

... the striking thing is for the very first time in the Arab world the most disliked person is the President of the United States of America, and superceded the combined numbers for both the Prime Minister of Israel and his hated predecessor Ariel Sharon, who's in a coma," said Telhami.

The poll, ...allowed people to suggest any person outside of their own country. In past years, ...This year, Arabs selected Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, because of the "black eye" given to Israel after they withdrew from their attack on Lebanon, according to the report.

For those of you who don't know, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is a Shi'ite, while the vast majority of Arabs are Sunnis. And with current relations between Sunnis and Shi'ites at a longtime low, it is even more jarring to see Nasrallah considered the most liked person in the world by Arabs.

More

Remember when Scott Ritter was correct about what a clusterf*ck Iraq would be?

Here is his take on the coming war on Iran.
Steven D at Booman Tribune

If I were to address [the Democrats in Congress], I would focus my effort on trying to impress them with the issue that will cost them political power down the road. This issue is Iran. While President Bush, a Republican, remains Commander in Chief, a Democrat-controlled Congress shares responsibility on war and peace from this point on. The conflict in Iraq, although ongoing, is a product of the Republican-controlled past. The looming conflict with Iran, however, will be assessed as a product of a Democrat-controlled present and future. If Iraq destroyed the Republican Party, Iran will destroy the Democrats.

I would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran. Not the mealy-mouthed Joe Biden-led hearings we witnessed on Iraq in July-August 2002, where he and his colleagues rubber-stamped the President's case for war, but genuine hearings that draw on all the lessons of Congressional failures when it came to Iraq. Summon all the President's men (and women), and grill them on every phrase and word uttered about the Iranian "threat," especially as it has been linked to nuclear weapons. Demand facts to back up the rhetoric.

More

At Long Last, Sir, Have you no decency?

By Clyde
I was listening to Diane Rehm's News Roundup Friday morning. The Journalists were Linda Wertheimer, Andrew Sullivan and Elanore Clift. The subject of conversation, Bush's expansion of the war and the senate Non-binding resolutions against the expansion.

A caller indicated there would be 45 thousand troops sent, not 21 thousand.

Thoughts were then expressed by these journalists that this president must be affected by the expressed desires of the country. That he would accept the prospect of thousands dying simply to cover his sorry ineptitude would be unthinkable.

Well, think it! This man has no decency! We've known that for more than six years. Each time he has gone before congress assembled, to present his state of the union address, he has used inflammatory points he knew were not valid. That is the expression of a faulsehood. Lying. From his previous record as the governor of Texas, it appears he simply has no regard for human life.

Bush stated he knew nothing about Plame. The grand jury testimony is showing that Cheney was in the middle of the whole thing and was the one who leaked Plame's identity. But the president didn't know...(?)

Bush has now admited that statements that the US was winning in Iraq during the run-up to the elections were false. That he was disturbed by the lack of progress and has been considering this 'New Direction' all that time.

Congress must stand up to thwart this pitiful little man, who would be king. He must not be allowed to further squander the lives of our troops, the lifeblood of our treasure, and the honor for which this country has stood, for over 230 years. He must not be allowed finally to make true the imagined all pervading terrorism he has preached since 9-11-2001. He must be prevented from engaging yet another non-aggressive middleast state in a preemptive war for no other reason than to cover up his incompetence as a head of state, and enraging one and a half BILLION muslims.

Finally as happened in the Army - McCarthy hearings, someone must finally rise and ask this question of Bush, Cheney et. al. "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

No, it's not the set-up for a really sad joke... Robert Reich asks What Can Possibly Be in Bush's Head?

The points Reich makes are good commentary, but some of the best comments are, remarkably, in the comments. Read them too.

Question: Why is Bush willing to risk his party’s future, as well as his own legacy, by putting more troops into Iraq when it’s clear to almost everyone – including top military brass, foreign policy experts, and most analysts and journalists on the ground there – that Iraq is descending so quickly into civil war that more troops won’t make a bit of difference except causing more American deaths and instigating more violence?

Read more

If you want a clearer view of what's going on try the foreign press.

From Germany: Bush: The Great Failure
Really sounds complimentary doesn't it?

From the Financial Times Analysis: Bush tries to buy some time
What for? Why, to try to wash the blood off his hands.

From The Yemen Observer, Yemen
Gulf States Must Avoid American Recklessness
This really inspires confidence.

From Tunis Hebdo, Tunisia
Sacrilege Against Islam:
This is how the whole region sees Shrub's 'plan'.

Is This What Bush Wants?

http://www2.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifHave you noticed how well lil' Georgie listens to his Generals?

Scarecrow at Firedoglake

President Bush has said on previous occasions that when it comes to deciding whether more US troops should be added to Iraq or withdrawn, "I listen to the generals on the ground." But apparently he meant only when the generals on the ground are carrying out his wishes. When those same generals advocate a different policy, it's time to replace them.

[...]

Prior to the elections, the White House seemed more than happy to adopt this strategy, or to at least claim that it was supporting it. WH officials repeatedly dangled the possibility of US troop reductions before the electorate, and they encouraged General Abizaid, the leader of the Central Command in the Middle East, and General Casey, the head of the US/International Forces in Iraq, to discuss the strategy with reporters and before Congress.

[...]

Now however, the elections have passed. The strategy is no longer needed to win the election — in fact, it failed to do that. So the strategy is being abandoned by the White House, leaving the generals the unhappy choice of either defending it openly, in opposition to their Commander in Chief and civilian leadership, or agreeing to implement a different policy they do not support.

[...]

In coming weeks and months, we will likely hear again from these generals, and many others like them, who have found it necessary to speak out against their Commander in Chief. Only this time, they won't be speaking only on CNN or MSNBC's Hardball. They'll be testifying before Congress, in front of Committees headed by Democrats, who will be very interested in what they have to say. I expect the nation's media will be riveted on the spectacle of watching senior military officials explain why their recommendations were ignored by an increasingly unpopular President and his men.

More

The ideal Golfing twosome, Dubya and O.J.

James Moore in Huffington

There is probably not much chance that Mr. Bush and O.J. Simpson will ever get to play golf together, although there would be much convenience and symmetry to the round. O.J. could continue his quest to find the real killer of his wife and her lover and the former president could look in the rough for weapons of mass destruction. Instead, however, Mr. Bush will spend the last part of his life wielding a chainsaw cutting down cedar trees in one of the box canyons of his ranch along the hardscrabble Balcones Escarpment. He will, of course, still be oblivious to all the wrongs he has done to his country and the global community. Forever, this man's heart and soul will be separated from the harm he has caused and the lives he has ruined and he will continue to sleep the sleep of a child.

As he fades, though, even George W. Bush is likely to ask himself the glaring question of how he went from being the most influential man on planet Earth to a cedar chopper with a nice house, no friends, and a few government paid guards watching over him in boredom. The answer, of course, should he ever get around to asking, will be "democracy." In spite of all he did to destroy our constitution simply to serve his political ends, our democracy will survive and move past Mr. Bush.

And he will finally arrive at the ignominy he has so rightly earned.

More